What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but speciation isnt evolution. its just a variation.

This was already explained by sfs in #462:

Because it's not just a variation, it's a particular kind of variation. We call that particular kind of variation "evolution". We don't call other kinds of variation "evolution". Using different words for different things helps us keep track of them. That's how language works.

 

[xianghua]

Why is it an issue? Common descent is a reasonable inference from (the evolutionary mechanism of speciation). Special creation is not. There is no evidence of special creation, no reason to believe in it. If it turns out to be true then eventually there will be evidence found for it, I suppose, but in the meantime common descent remains the best working hypothesis. So what?

lets check it. as you can remember from the last time i showed you something like this image:

(image from Word HELP on beach sand stock image. Image of lvoe, letters - 1286583)

you said that we cant prove design by looking at this. right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes they are. And they were created that way. There are no transitional fossils. No evidence of a common ancestor and no observation of anything as proposed occurring. All things remain in their same group no matter what the changes may occur due to micro changes.

Let's try it another way.

Do you think that one of the things that defines a fossil as "transitional" is that it is NOT a "fully formed" creature?

 

[Speedwell]

lets check it. as you can remember from the last time i showed you something like this image:

(image from Word HELP on beach sand stock image. Image of lvoe, letters - 1286583)

you said that we cant prove design by looking at this. right?

What is the world does that have to do with whether God created the present diversity of life starting with a single self- replicating life form or from a number of creatures? Have you forgotten what the point of your argument was?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Until it is proven through scientific experimentation it is a theory. If one can't come up with an experiment to prove or disprove it, it is an hypothesis. The key is that they didn't "prove" mutation took place. Rather, they concluded that it "almost certainly" must have.

Scientific rules are really, absurdly simple. If you don't follow them, what you are doing may be really cool and useful (like a lot of stuff Tesla did), but if you don't follow the scientific method, it's not science.

Trying to school @sfs, of all people, on how to science...

After writing a sentence like "Until it is proven through scientific experimentation it is a theory. If one can't come up with an experiment to prove or disprove it, it is an hypothesis."

Classic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

if they are able to reproduce with variation, why not?

The point is that they aren't. They are only able to do so in your imaginary silly hypothetical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes. I simply thing they are ignoring HOW populations evolve. They evolve via changes in individuals. That is, if real biological "evolution" is taking place within a population, a subsequent generation from a single set of parents will have a difference from the parents that the parents don't have. Of course, it's far more complex than that, but you get my drift.

You should read up on the term "mutation rate".
Just about every new born comes with a set of mutations.
In humans, it's 50-ish.

Yes, traits ultimately originate in, or come to full expression in, individuals.

But if a mutation makes an individual tiger run slightly faster then his peers and still gets eaten by a crockodile before reproducing, no evolution took place.

Evolution is about populations. Yes, populations are made up of individuals.
But evolution is about populations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you consider any such variation as evolution. but again: its just a variation, so why call it evolution?

You can call a table a "toilet", but it won't change the nature of the table.
You'll only end up confusing people by saying things like "please, join me at my toilet".

 

[sfs]

Opinions vary.

Opinions may vary, but on this issue only some of them reflect reality. Scientific experiments routinely incorporate measures of uncertainty into their reported results -- p-values, estimates of false positive and false negative rates, false discovery rate, confidence interval, likelihood ratios. Your suggestion that the scientific method routinely comes to certain, binary conclusions is contradicted by a central feature of actual scientific practice.

 

[Aman777]

If humans didn't come from apes, why have we found so many intermediate fossils?

And why is human DNA so close to chimp DNA, sharing things like the same mutation that disables vitamin C production?

1. Humans (descendants of Adam) were made (3rd Day) billions of years, in man's time, before any other living creature. Gen 2:4-7
2. Humans blood was mixed with the blood of the sons of God (prehistoric people) when Noah's grandsons had NO other Humans to marry. Like Cain, on Adam's Earth, they married and produced children with prehistoric people. Gen 6:4 That is how our genetics were contaminated with the DNA and ERVs of Mitochondrial Eve. Amen?

 

[durangodawood]

What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

To me it means humans and chimps are closely related.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In answer to the OP, sharing 96% of my DNA with chimps, in the grand scheme of things... means very little other than it being a cool fact.

Like, it's awesome, yes, but does it make it easier for me to get a job?

 

[xianghua]

What is the world does that have to do with whether God created the present diversity of life starting with a single self- replicating life form or from a number of creatures? Have you forgotten what the point of your argument was?

you said that there is no evidence for a special creation. so i want to show you otherwise.

 

[bhsmte]

you said that there is no evidence for a special creation. so i want to show you otherwise.

Go ahead, show us.

 

[mathinspiration]

I heard that Orangtuans have DNA more closer to man’s than chimps.

 

[sfs]

I heard that Orangtuans have DNA more closer to man’s than chimps.

I heard that too. It was wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

To me it means humans and chimps are closely related.

Ding, ding, ding.

We have a winner.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Which ones?

What I meant is that you don't appear to understand the nature of science experiments. Science never concludes with absolute certainty as you ask. Rather it deals with conclusions that are probably true or almost certainly true. The expression I used in my reply, P< .005, is scientific shorthand to say that the probability that the conclusion is not true based on this experiment is less than .5%. And yet when science always deals with probabilities, and even has its own shorthand for quantifying this, you ask for certainty.

Anyway, things like evolution and the atomic nature of matter are considered almost certainly true.

 

[xianghua]

The point is that they aren't. They are only able to do so in your imaginary silly hypothetical.

so if they were able to do so you will say that a self replicating car doesnt need a designer then?

 

[xianghua]

I heard that too. It was wrong.

i think he refer to a part of the genome :

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126131548.htm

Humans Related to Orangutans, Not Chimps, Says New Pitt, Buffalo Museum of Science Study of Human Origin | University of Pittsburgh News

Orangutans as orators? Ape speech is surprisingly like our own

and its also true for the gorila genome:

Gorilla joins the genome club